Author Topic: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!  (Read 50442 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2010, 01:46:47 AM »
I will have some photos up shortly. This looks like it will be a very tough game. I think India may hold for 1 more turn but I would say future prospects are grim. Yes - I got lucky with a couple of sub hits on Jap carriers but if you don't try...

I think the Pacific US should be able to build airborne divisions (they are not on the build chart).

The Japanese have an amazing amount of air.

Rule clarification needed - if a carrier is sunk during the movement phase by a sub and the planes can land on adjacent land - can they then be involved in the regular combat phase. We said yes. What say you?

BTW - island hopping is really tough and scary - if you mess your planning up - you can get in big trouble very quickly :o

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2010, 03:41:16 AM »
I think I am OK with enabling the US to build paratroopers in the Pacific. . .

At first I was more of the line of thinking that air units on the carrier should be eliminated. . .I mean if the carrier is torpedoed, the planes are going down with the ship, right?  (I know I will regret this the next time I play Britain).  But after running some numbers, it may make sub hits against carriers too deadly.  I think perhaps planes should get to fly their range off of a killed carrier - but should NOT be allowed to participate in combat (unless attacked) on the movement phase - they may move again on the non-vombat phase.

Why is India in such deep trouble?  Not able to build enough / ship enough there to hold it - or are the Japanese going all out to take it?

Where is Stillwell and Slim?

What is the current VP level?  It is going to start dropping 2 VPs a turn I think from now on out. . .

Anything broken?  What are the challenges with Island hopping?





« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 04:12:06 AM by Mark »

Darkman

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2010, 04:22:02 AM »
For my opinion the planes should be killed aswell.
Britain used a lot light carriers to secure their convoys

DeathMachine

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2010, 09:39:46 AM »
I have a rule suggestion, again having to do with the extremely overpowered american heavy bombers. As of right now they are a 4 air to air, which is +3 bonus over a regular heavy bomber. The impetus for this incredibly high str was to simulate the staying power of the bomber, but they weren't better at shooting down enemy fighters than another fighter, right?

So here is what I think: Drop the air to air down to a 2, giving them +1 AtoA over a regular bomber because of the ball turret of course. Then add 1 to the AtoA roll of any fighter that is in combat with the bomber. The bomber will get through a good deal of the time this way.

By the way, is the bomber damage still a whopping 2d6 or is it the roll 2d6 drop the lowest and add 1 to the die roll of the other die?

DeathMachine

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2010, 09:40:30 AM »
Oh and Slim is in a japanese prison. We took his hat. He is real pissed.

DeathMachine

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2010, 09:57:08 AM »
For the submarines, I was referring to when subs sink a carrier during a snap fire. This snap fire happens well before any battles take place, it happens during the initiative phase. So the planes have not even gotten a chance to move yet in the game, but they were going somewhere, we just hadn't actually moved the piece yet. We thought it reasonable that the planes would have time to rebase and move with all the planes at the end of the initiative phase. On writing down all my logical steps now I see that I  may have some holes in that logic. I guess my main problem with it is that the subs do things in the game well before the simultaneous choices could be made. It actually does make sense that subs have this "first strike" attribute associated with them, although.

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2010, 10:27:11 AM »
I really think the heavy bomber is fine with a 4 air to air and 2d6 economic damage.
A regular U.S. Medium Bomber is a 2 air to air - so a heavy bomber should be at least a 3.
I think 2d6 is ok for economic damage - they seem to be pretty balanced now in the european theater.

I guess we could investigate a 3 air to air value and your suggestion of a +1 modifer for attacks made against them if you guys think it wors better.

British_Mike

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2010, 12:13:24 PM »
I am sure Slim is being as unhelpful as possible and spending plenty of time in the cooler, Alec Guiness-style.

We made very effective use of paratroops in India, where there has been no Allied air power until just now. This, along with an amphib, allowed for a very rapid break-in to a depth of two Indian spaces. The tank we brought along has helped by meching into empty spots. And Yamashita was made for this kind of fighting.

Unfortunately - imagine the groans coming from Brian and I - our 2x paratroop assault on Bombay was defeated on the first turn - freshly-graduated Indian infantry, fighting from their training bases, destroyed both paras in round 1. Ouch!!

Cheers

Mike

British_Mike

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2010, 01:27:07 PM »
[quote author=Mark link=topic=340.msg3914#msg3914 date=1288733231

I guess we could investigate a 3 air to air value and your suggestion of a +1 modifer for attacks made against them if you guys think it wors better.
Quote

As a mainly Allied player, I can see the appeal of keeping hvy bombers as tough as they are. They really perk you up as the force builds in 1942.

In terms of accuracy though, I think our current rules reflects the myth of the self-defending bomber.

I agree with Brian that a rule fix is needed to prevent so many fighters from getting killed by bomber defensive fire. That is the gist of his suggested fix, I believe. There is probably a history buff reading this (Joe? James?)  who has stats on German fighter losses to B-17 defensive fire. 

It is just plain silly that some fighters can pin a B-17, in theory as it sits on its base, and then have to battle it out at -1 air-to-air value. Maybe that's a broader problem with the issue of airbase attacks.

Cheers

Mike

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2010, 10:05:28 PM »
We can perhaps move the heavy bomber value to a 3 air to air and just have AA and fighter attacks against them have a +1 die roll modifier - that may in fact work better than the 4 air to air value - if you guys agree with it.  That would make them tougher to knock out, but less effective at destroying interceptors.

I think one of the rationalizations I had in the back of my head, was that Hy bombers would be bombing fuel and plane manufacturing as a primary target - which would in-effect impact enemy fighter strength - thus justifying the slitghtly higher A-to-A combat value. . .

But, keep in mind they are expensive units to purchase (14 PP) if we lower their effectiveness too much, they are not going to be worth buying.

We have made other adjustments for game playability, balance and fun - for expample - the Italian production and combat value is probably over-valued - giving the Axis a little more of an edge.  Slightly over-valued hy bombers gives the allies a little bit of an edge.

Having said that, I am OK dropping them to a 3 and having shots against them be at a +1.  Will this be acceptable?  Let's lock this down then.

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2010, 10:27:20 PM »
Looking at the math and the Air combat table:
A heavy bomber with a A2A value of 4 vs. a Me109 with an A2A value of 5:
Me 109 kills the bomber on a 3, returns it on a 6 or less.
Bomber kills the Me109 on a 2, returns it on a 5 or less.

If we make the Hy. bomber a 3, but attacks against it are a +1 then the results are:
Me 109 kills the bomber on a 3, returns it on a 5 or less.
Bomber kills the Me 109 on a 2, returns it on a 4 or less.

So actually, I think this suggestion makes it actually worse for defending interceptors.  So maybe not a good idea after all.

I like the 3 or less kill, 6 or less return results for an Me109 against the hy bomber - the +1 column.  You get a good mix of returns on that column which represents damaged bombers going home.

But, I like the bombers shooting back on the -2 column (2 or less kill, 4 or less return).

So - maybe the right adjustment is make Hy bombers a 3 Air to air value when firing A2A, but a 4 value when defending A2A.  You actually don't gain much over the 4 A2A value for Hy bombers though, one lower return result for defending fighters - which does not mean much.

If you make them just a 3 A2A value with no modifiers then results are:
Me109 kills the bombers on a 4, returns them on a 6.
Hy. Bomber kills the Me109 on a 2, returns it on a 4.

With this, you kill bombers a bit more, but you do not increase the suvivability of your interceptors at all - so does not help your problem either.


Yoper

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2010, 01:40:22 AM »
Quote
Where is Stillwell and Slim?

Vinegar Joe is my favorite general of the war. ;D

Kicking the "Little Peanut" in the ass the whole way! :o

Mark

  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2010, 01:55:56 AM »
Yeah - I like Stilwell too. . . Ever since the movie 1941 with John Belushi. . .

With respect to Hy. Bombers - we could make the unit something like the following - if that is what you guys are after. . . .


DeathMachine

  • Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2010, 05:28:04 AM »
You make a great point Mark, all units do not need to have comparable cost/effectiveness ratios. The heavy bombers were just better than regular bombers and they didn't cost so much more, this represents a superior technology, just like the german jet fighters. In terms of gameplay though, there is no contest. Heavy bombers cost 16% more than regular bombers and have AtoA increased 100% and bombing damage increased 100% and they probably are better land bombers and they have longer range, etc.  In game terms this means that it really is just silly to build regular bombers anymore but once the US figured out this technology they didn't just stop building regular bombers, I think. You've already taken care of this by putting a limit on how many heavy bombers you can have on the build chart so if you need even more bombers you have to build the weaker ones. So I am not under the impression that the unit is broken anymore.

My main worry was that my fighters were getting shot down too much, not that the bombers were actually getting by. So the only change I would suggest now(with the mindset that the new bombers are just plain better overall and thats ok) wouldn't actually change if the bomber gets by or not. Keep him as a 4 AtoA and add 1 to the bombers die roll instead of the fighters. I leave it up to you historians to decide if this would better represent how many fighters were downed by hvy bombers or if it is represented correctly the way it is now.

John D.

  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: PACIFIC PLAYTEST!
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2010, 10:28:37 AM »
I think Brian/Mark's fix works great! +1 to die roll vs fighters - easy fix!
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 10:43:50 AM by John D. »